click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
? >> well, piers, as you know, there were a number of efforts before the election to get this done and there were major differences between the parties, and those parties became a big part of the conversation during the presidential debate. the president could not have been clearer that he wanted to do two things. he wanted to boost economic growth by doing things like investing in our infrastructure which used to be a bipartisan idea, but also, extending middle class tax cuts and as you said, asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more to reduce the deficit. that was part of the conversation. so we would hope that the election would break a little bit of this logjam. obviously that hasn't happened yet. the president's put his plan on the table. i'm still very hopeful, piers, that we'll get there. i agree with you, it would be better to get there sooner rather than later. time is running out. no doubt about it. >> one of the big problems it seems to me is the relationship between john boehner and barack obama. just seems deeply flawed. they're at a party and they couldn't be bot
now. the american people re-elected him and they re-elected us. that's not a mandate to raise taxes. that's what house speaker john boehner told fellow republicans during a weekly meeting, signaling he will push back on president obama's demand for tax hikes on the rich when it comes to the fiscal cliff. but treasury secretary timothy geithner says the white house will not give in. >> no prospect to an agreement that doesn't involve those rates going up on the top 2% of the wealthiest americans. remember it's only 2%. >> geithner adds the obama administration is, quote, absolutely prepared to go off the cliff, if necessary. joining me now is van jones, cnn contributor and former obama administration official. good morning. >> god morning to you. >> so, van, i guess my first question that's eatsy for geithner to say, we're perfectly willing to go off the fiscal cliff. that means a tax hike on middle class americans and maybe some of them are thinking this morning i'm not really so happy geithner said that. >> it might have been inartful for him to say it the way he said it. i think h
type of constitution in which the people can have a say in electing their government. and where the countries then are put on a more stable footing. because once that goes, then what? so this is fantastically difficult. once you lift the lid off these very repressive regimes and out comes all this religious and tribal tension, we have to find a way to stabilizing the situation and bring the bloodshed to an end. >> elsewhere in the region, egypt right now, we're seeing these protesters, these anti-mohammed morsi protesters moving closer and closer towards the presidential pass palace in cairo. they're concerned about what morsi is doing as far as democracy in egypt. how worried are you about the situation in egypt? >> i think egypt is key to the region, so the answer is, you've got to be extremely worried when you see instability affecting egypt. this is, again, the birth pangs of proper democracy in some ways, but this struggle is immensely important. obviously what's important in these countries where they've moved to a democratic system is that there is a clear understanding t
affected by the fact that for the first time in this last election you have people going to the polls and actually voting to allow same-sex marriage as opposed to it coming from judges or legislators? >> i don't think justices sort of said the polls did "x" so i will do "y." in 1986, louis powell, the swing justice of his day, they had the first real gay rights case, and he said to his law clerk, you know, as they were sort of weighing the case, you know, i've never met a gay person. i've never met a homosexual. what is that like? now, he didn't know that law clerk himself was homosexual, but that was what the world was like in 1986, that a worldly, intelligent man could have thought that he'd never met someone who was gay. now, even the conservatives on the court couldn't possibly express a sentiment like that. and that's just reflected in how the court acts. >> what do you think -- are is there any way to read the tea leaves on this? >> based on my experience in the health care case, i am going to not do a lot of predictions because, you know, wrong is wrong. but anthony kennedy has
know, after this election, this issue is so ripe for the supreme court the jurisdictions are so split in their laws, many states recognizing same-sex marriage and performing same-sex marriages. some states not recognizing them. this is the perfect scenario for the supreme court to step in and ultimately make a ruling. there are over 1,000 cases, joe, in which federal laws are impacted by marital status. the time has come. it's ripe. prop 8 was on the doorstep for the supreme court. here we go. >> avery, we were trading e-mails a little bit a while ago. one of the questions i asked you was whether the supreme court essentially gave itself an emergency escape hatch with one of the cases it chose. can you talk about that? >> late yesterday, as you know, joe, the supreme court amended its grant of review when it said, we want to know about the issue of standing. meaning does the person involved in the challenge have the right to be there in the first place. if the court doesn't then what it means in practical terms is if you don't have the right to be in court, you don't have standing, th
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)